Here’s How Much More Money Obama Wants For Global Warming Programs

President Barack Obama is preparing to unveil his 2017 budget request, and already reports have surfaced the president is planning on asking Congress for billions of dollars more to spend on global warming programs.

“One of the greatest challenges of our time is climate change,” Obama said in his weekly address Saturday. “Rather than subsidize the past, we should invest in the future. That’s why the budget I’ll send to Congress this Tuesday will double funding for clean energy research and development by 2020.”

Obama wants to build on increased green energy funding he got from Congress last year to eventually spend $12.8 billion on research and development by 2021, along with hundreds of millions of dollars to other programs aimed at fighting global warming.

The White House’s last big global warming push comes after the president proposed a $10 per barrel tax on oil production last week. Obama wants to tax oil to pay for green transportation programs, which he believes will be like a second stimulus program.

So, here’s what Obama is planning on asking Congress for in his 2017 budget proposal to fulfill his global warming ambitions:

The Energy Department, for example, would get $1.8 billion to spend on making things like green energy storage more economical, according to a White House fact sheet. The department would also get $880 million to spend on making green transportation more affordable and push green fuels.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the agency most people think of as responsible for space exploration, would get $348 million for green energy research if Obama’s budget proposal was approved. NASA has come under intense scrutiny in recent months because of its shift away from space exploration to focus more on Earth sciences — aka global warming.

Now, Obama is directing even more funds towards global warming-related research. This is on top of $512 million the president wants to give the National Science Foundation to study green energy.

USDA Will Get Money To Promote Green Fuels

Obama also wants to give the Department of Agriculture (USDA) $105 million for “competitive and intramural research funding to support development of bio-based energy sources that range from sustainable and economical forest systems and farm products to increased production of biofuels,” according to the White House.

The White House also wants to direct $10 million to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to “help facilitate builders, property owners and tenants to take actions that result in improved energy efficiency or expanded use of low- and no-carbon energy sources.”

“This $10 million effort includes the creation of an advisory group of researchers, builders, tenants, and homeowners to design and implement studies on how to facilitate long-term behavior change in the housing sector, and the evaluation of a clean energy pilot intended to incentivize multifamily property owners and tenants to reduce energy consumption,” according to the White House.

Bill Vancouver

Why is there no public record of where all this climate research funding is being spent? Where are the “climate scientist’s” reports? With a price tag attached. How effective is the climate research? If the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming science is settled, why do we still spend billions annually? If these basic questions cannot be answered, there should not be any further taxpayer dollars wasted. What is the rate of return on our science investment. Where are the metrics of determining our progress in controlling climate change…I mean CAGW.

amirlach

[quote name=”Bill Vancouver”]Why is there no public record of where all this climate research funding is being spent? Where are the “climate scientist’s” reports? With a price tag attached. How effective is the climate research? If the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming science is settled, why do we still spend billions annually? If these basic questions cannot be answered, there should not be any further taxpayer dollars wasted. What is the rate of return on our science investment. Where are the metrics of determining our progress in controlling climate change…I mean CAGW.[/quote] The short answer is all the alarmists have been able to produce after spending untold BILLIONS are invalidated Models and Fiddled temperature records.

There are some nations waking up to this fraud and have started to FIRE these fraudsters. 100 Down. Thousands to go…[img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/flannery_scr.jpg[/img]

[quote]In these days of automated weather stations and satellite temperature monitoring, its a little difficult to understand why you need hundreds of scientists to produce a few climate graphs – especially since parallel efforts are in progress in a number of other countries. Perhaps all the scientists are required, to help think up plausible sounding reasons why the historic rate of warming in Australia should be adjusted upwards.[/quote]

Tatsuo Komedashi

I wish to tell you the new technology that I have alredy developed for prevention of global warming.
The evidences exist in item (13) and item (14) and item (15) in my Home-Page.
URL : http://www.vaporization-energy.com/

Aido

It gets even more dodgy. The ‘anomalies’ are differences from a 30-year average, referred to as the ‘norm’.. 1930-1960, then 1960-1990, which is the current ‘norm’. If you took 1940-1970, or 1950-1980 as the ‘norm’, you’d get different figures. How anyone falls for this beats me.

Amber

Ricky C
About 60 million voters would likely agree with you . Some people like to rescue pit bulls to because they figure they can “fix ‘ them .
Donald Trump doesn’t need one of his top enemies buttering up his daughter
to help sell a scary global warming scam .
Gore , Podesta , and Steyer are the best of pals and would love nothing more than to have a direct pipeline into Trump to help bring him down . Stating the obvious ,
they mean him absolutely no good and will do every thing they can to wreck his Presidency one way or the other .
Lets hope Ivanka dedicates her influence and smarts to help real people and solve real problems .
Stein got 1 % of the vote for a reason . The global warming con game is over .

amirlach

Ricky C

She better not. Just like its said, everyone worked very hard, myself particularly to get the waste out of the “Climate Change” feeding trough for consultants who do nothing for the economy. If I want to make sure my medical supplies at a local hospital in third world countries that I visit are modern and effective, their economy has to be booming, not cut down by giving money to international Climate Change hustlers.

JayPee

Dale

I don’t know whether or not Tim Ball actually made the above posting but if so, it’s in very poor taste and severely weakens his potential as a climate authority. Spamming web sites (I’ve seen this several times before on other sites) is not the way to gather interest or respect. People usually ignore such spam and laugh it off as just another fly-by-night.
I’ve read many of Tim Ball’s articles and have heard him speak via video. He has too much to offer to stoop to this low level nonsense, if this posting is indeed from Tim Ball.